Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
By WILL SENTELL
wsentell@theadvocate.com
Capitol news bureau
High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.
If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana.
Alabama approved its policy six or seven years ago after extensive controversy that included questions over the religious overtones of the issue.
The change approved Tuesday requires Louisiana education officials to check on details for getting publishers to add the disclaimer to biology textbooks.
It won approval in the board's Student and School Standards/ Instruction Committee after a sometimes contentious session.
"I don't believe I evolved from some primate," said Jim Stafford, a board member from Monroe. Stafford said evolution should be offered as a theory, not fact.
Whether the proposal will win approval by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on Thursday is unclear.
Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition.
"I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said.
"I don't think state boards should dictate editorial content of school textbooks," he said. "We shouldn't be involved with that."
Donna Contois of Metairie, chairwoman of the committee that approved the change, said afterward she could not say whether it will win approval by the full board.
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.
The issue surfaced when a committee of the board prepared to approve dozens of textbooks used by both public and nonpublic schools. The list was recommended by a separate panel that reviews textbooks every seven years.
A handful of citizens, one armed with a copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," complained that biology textbooks used now are one-sided in promoting evolution uncritically and are riddled with factual errors.
"If we give them all the facts to make up their mind, we have educated them," Darrell White of Baton Rouge said of students. "Otherwise we have indoctrinated them."
Darwin wrote that individuals with certain characteristics enjoy an edge over their peers and life forms developed gradually millions of years ago.
Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis.
White said he is the father of seven children, including a 10th-grader at a public high school in Baton Rouge.
He said he reviewed 21 science textbooks for use by middle and high school students. White called Darwin's book "racist and sexist" and said students are entitled to know more about controversy that swirls around the theory.
"If nothing else, put a disclaimer in the front of the textbooks," White said.
John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review. Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.
Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.
Linda Johnson of Plaquemine, a member of the board, said she supports the change. Johnson said the new message of evolution "will encourage students to go after the facts."
This reasoning works for you because of the implicit assumption that if it is Moral it must arise from some cause that isn't simply the pragmatic long term interests of the group. This is what we used to call Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc reasoning in rhetoric class: assuming what's to be proved. Pragmatic is synonymous with correct from my point of view, and is all the source of morals one needs. It's just fallable, is all. Like has been said about democracy, it sucks, until you observe the track record of all the available alternatives.
I am sure God thought about what he was doing, but the final product is not imaginary, it is objecitvely real from the human perspective. Can't you see the difference?
How many times are we going to repeat this before your tape reel breaks? There is no way you can demonstrate that an imagined up universe is any less sound, deep, or consistent than a non-imagined universe. You know nothing of the imagineer's capacities.
What in tarnation do you mean by "imagined up"? Huh? God thought about what the universe would consist of and look like in every detail, then he created it as a physical reality. You seem to be saying it is possible that the universe is not objectively real, and I have blown holes in that theory galore as it is inconsistent with human experience, rationality - it's a non-rational suggestion out of your imagination (my God is rational, not non-rational), and is contrary to all known evidence and human experience. Then you doubted the reality of rationality itself in which case your very words became a victim to y our own argument. In other words - you do not make any sense. Congratulations Mr. Deconstruction - you have succeeded in confusing yourself even.
On the same basis we cling to, for instance, the first amendment. Free speech for everyone, not just those who agree with me. It's a prudent idea with long term benefits for all who subscribe. Guarantees of life & liberty for the innocent, ALL the innocent, not just those who worship at my church. It accrues to the long term best interests--the survival values--of the entire polis, the entire country, the entire planet. It's a good thesis with widespread applicability, no matter what you decide is your primary survival group.
No. Be so good as to point out to me what the difference would be. You cannot demonstrate that a universe with an imaginary source and an universe with an objectively real source can be told apart, because you don't know butkis about such sources, they are both equally immaterial when viewed from within reality by real beings. Can you automatically tell a dream apart from reality while you are in the dream? If you can, you are the first reported instance of such a being I am aware of.
And how, exactly, is this different from "imagining the universe up"?
You seem to be saying it is possible that the universe is not objectively real
Sigh. No, I did not say this. I said you can't demonstrate it wasn't imagined up. Reality can be just a real as can be, and that still doesn't demonstrate squat about where it came from.
, and I have blown holes in that theory galore as it is inconsistent with human experience, rationality - it's a non-rational suggestion out of your imagination (my God is rational, not non-rational), and is contrary to all known evidence and human experience.
You have persistently attempted to disprove a dopey position I do not hold. Congratulations on that fine catch of barrel-fish.
Then you doubted the reality of rationality itself in which case your very words became a victim to y our own argument.
I asked you where I suggested this, and you did not answer. I will assume that you are just coasting along on autopilot now, from the rude, irrelevant, repetitive nature of your responses.
Pragmatism = Correct? Then on what basis did you say Hitler was wrong? What he did was VERY pragmatic and effective. So, which is it? Was Hitler right or wrong? Saying pragmatism is flawed is an understatement! On the other hand, you cannot prove that moral absolutes from God are flawed or fallible in any way. So, is that the best you can do - tell me I can't prove moral absolutes are from God explicitly? My answer is that if logic and human experience are any guide, it is proven, as there are no other tests available. All available evidence is on my side so it is much more than rhetoric. You can't escape that. Relativism is illogical and not possible in practice. The two arguments are not equal. Nice try, but no cigar. Furthermore, I can find major logical and practical flaws in ANY other moral model you would care to provide as an alternative! Thus, it is incorrect to our arguments are equal.
Yes, Democracy is flawed - that is why our founders chose a constitutional republic instead (based upon biblical principles, I might add), and it has worked better than any governmental system in history of the world because it is based upon moral absolutes and the recognition that human beings are corrupt. But it works because it conforms to universal moral principles to a high degree. The Federalists feared the tyranny of the people, and the Republicans feared the tyranny of the Government because they KNEW that people are sinful and that power ALWAYS corrupts.
You tell me. God created it and it is here. Why do you care whether or not He thought about it first? What possible difference does it make - either way God created it and the end result is the same.
Sigh. No, I did not say this. I said you can't demonstrate it wasn't imagined up. Reality can be just a real as can be, and that still doesn't demonstrate squat about where it came from.
It really doesn't affect my arguments at all if God thought about it first before He acted. The fact is God is the causative agent whether He did it without thinking or after thinking. Either way, it is just as materially real. So, what exactly is the significance of your argument?
Right. And for exactly the same reasons, you can't prove that God's absolutes aren't actually supplied by the Devil.
Like I said, pragmatic sources of morality are potentially flawed and dangerous, but less so than any other obvious option, for the obvious reason that they are accessable to pragmatic reasoning. Once you decide, in your self-righteous certainty, that God supplied you with morality, it isn't very correctable, now is it?
If your church father's decided, because it was a True reading of the True Text, that the Story of Abraham and Isaac was a warrant from God that it's an Absolute Moral requirement that your first born be sacrificed on the alter at age 21, would you question it? On what basis? Pragmatic considerations of personal attachment and justice?
So you agree that it is a quite reasonable characterization to say God imagined the universe up? If so, we can proceed to the second question: "Why couldn't God have imagined up the universe, say, a few seconds into the Expansionary period. It was, after all, still pretty simple stuff and not particularly taxing for a reasonably industrial-strengh god.
You can, of course, present evidence in support of this proposition.
...and that;s the problem - where is that certain point? Where is the line drawn if the answer does not come from God? You may think your 'rationality' is objective, but it is not. It is totally subjective as you admit without realizing. You 'do not wish to be murdered' and believe that by withholding from it you will encourage others to act the same way. But clearly this is not the case. When morals are subjective we get such things as the Clintonian 'nothing is wrong if you do not get caught' which for example is exercised by some in killing anyone who may be a witness to their crimes. Now this is a rational position too is it not? Not wanting to pay for ones crimes? Men can rationalize many things, so clearly reason cannot be the source of morals.
Really? When was the last time you were knocked down by the continental drift? When did you last see a case of a stellar evolutionary lifetime? When was the last time you put a bandage on a neutrino-induced wound?
These things have been observed in a sense - we have observed their effects. What you are talking about though is something which is purely fictional, therefore it is not science.
More importantly though to create life you need to have organisms that function like those that exist otherwise they could not have been the precursors of the life we know.-me-
You mean like prokariotes so closely resemble social ants?
Really? This is the problem of reductionism, you take a single feature that may be similar in two different species while ignoring the millions of features in which they differ. This is a totally bogus argument.
It also must be said Don that in all the experiments conducted we have never seen a living thing that behaves differently in all the essential elements of life than all the others.-me-
Which proves what? Have we exhausted all possible such experiments now? Does that mean the continents never drifted until about 1950?
We are not talking geology. We are talking biology. Please stop bringing in irrelevancies. We certainly have examined enough species from enough totally different systems to know that the essentials of biology work the same in all of them. Even the newly discovered archaea which live under impossible conditions for most other living things have the same biological functioning as all other creatures. So you do not have a single scientific peg to hang your abiogenist hat on Don, all you have is the pap from pseudo-scientists who inhabit the underworld of Art Bell and others who cater to the absurd.
In what manner is my thesis's evidence different from, or inferior to, that supporting Behe's and Dembski's
It is not just Behe and Dembski that say abiogenesis is impossible. Just about the entire scientific community deems it to be impossible except for some inveterate atheists like Dawkins or Gould who are/were in no way biologists or even scientists (and no, I could care less if the Wizard of Oz gave them a diploma saying otherwise).
Even if your hypothetical were true, it does not help your materialist cause. The imaginer is still an intelligent being and your reality (and mine) still depends on the rules set by that intelligent being.
What Yockey actually said is not what you evidently think he said. But we'll leave that alone because you didn't want to pursue it earlier. But he really isn't in the Dembski/Behe camp. Likewise, Rocha has a lot to say about autonomy and abiogenesis. He addresses what is necessary for RNA editing in those circumstances and he is not in anybody's camp.
Thank you for the conversation!
Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God have to ponder anything?
Of course there is evidence. You have the testimony of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. If you accept this testimony you will accept the inevitability of a judgement. Of course, scripture is very explicit that many will reject it.
I wonder why this is so...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.